Graphene aerogel is seven times lighter than air, can balance on a blade of grass

Chinese material scientists have created the world’s lightest material: A graphene aerogel that is seven times lighter than air, and 12% lighter than the previous record holder (aerographite). A cubic centimeter of the graphene aerogel weighs just 0.16 milligrams — or, if you’re having a problem conceptualizing that, a cubic meter weighs just 160 grams (5.6 ounces). The graphene aerogel is so light that an cube inch of the stuff can be balanced on a blade of grass, the stamen of a flower, or the fluffy seed head of a dandelion (see pictures below).

Most aerogels are produced using a sol-gel process, where a gel is dehydrated until only the aerogel remains. Some aerogels are also produced using the template method — aerographite, for example, is created by growing carbon on a lattice (template) of zinc oxide crystals — and then the zinc oxide is removed in an oven, leaving just the carbon aerogel. To create the graphene aerogel, however, researchers at Zhejiang University use a novel freeze-drying method. Basically, it seems like the researchers create a solution of graphene and carbon nanotubes, pour it into a mold, and then freeze dry it. Freeze drying dehydrates the solution, leaving single-atom-thick layers of graphene, supported by carbon nanotubes. The researchers say that there’s no limit to the size of the container: You could make a mini graphene aerogel using this process, or a meter-cubed aerogel if you wish.

Graphene aerogel, propped up on the stamen of a flower. The cube, which is roughly an inch across, probably weighs less than 5 milligrams.

The end result is an aerogel that weighs just 0.16 milligrams per cubic centimeter, and has truly superb elasticity and absorption. The graphene aerogel can recover completely after more than 90% compression, and absorb up to 900 times its own weight in oil, at a rate of 68.8 grams per second. With these two features combined, lead researcher Gao Chao hopes that the material might be used to mop up oil spills, squeezed to reclaim the oil, and then thrown back in the ocean to mop up more oil. Beyond filtration, graphene aerogel might be used as insulation — or, if it’s as conductive as aerographite (which seems likely), graphene aerogel could enable the creation of lighter, higher-energy-density batteries.

Over the next few pages we’ve compiled some amazing photos of aerogels. Click through if you want to see lumps of carbon balancing on a blade of grass, centimeter-thick slabs of aerogel that can insulate against the blue flame of a Bunsen burner, or a two-gram piece of aerogel that can hold up a 2.5-kilogram brick, read on.

Tagged In

If it were truly lighter than an equal volume of air, it would float away. You should not be able to rest it on anything unless in a vacuum.

http://www.facebook.com/marc.guillotpuig Marc Guillot Puig

Maybe it’s lighter than air only on void, but in the photos it’s filled with air.

Mourad Bourema

In void all the body weights are equal

Mourad Bourema

In void all the body weights are equal

Sprintern123

No – in a vacuum, weight is definitely not “equal”. And in a zero-gravity environment weight is irrelevant – mass is not. Don’t get these things mixed up.

Marble Shark

Given mass and weight are directly proportional, perhaps it is you who should not “get these things mixed up”…

Merian White

they are directly proportional, but gravity acceleration changes, hence weight changes; but mass never changes. Mass is equivalent to how much actual atoms you have.

Nikola Johnny Pavlovic

That which you call weight is actually a force – a force resulting from gravity => in ‘zero-gravity’, objects are weightless. Mass remains constant unrelated to gravity whatsoever.
A simplified formula would be Fg = m*g where m is mass of the object and g is the local acceleration of free fall => if g is 0 as it should be in a theoretical ‘zero-gravity’ environment, Fg would stay 0 no matter the mass of the object, as the acceleration equals to zero.

memeford

Sprintern123, laying down the law.

http://www.facebook.com/timothy.sanborn.7 Timothy Sanborn

An object at rest will remain at rest, its not going to propel itself just because it is lighter then the medium it is suspended in. Plus it has gravity helping it out, that would not be the case in a vacuum, where it would be much more difficult to rest it on anything.

Eddie

Tell that to Helium and Hydrogen.

crazypete1

Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of basic physics. Nothing “propels” itself “up” because it is lighter than the medium it is suspended in: the medium moves down, forcing the lighter item “up”. This is why oil will float to the top of water.

Also: “Plus it has gravity helping it out, that would not be the case in a vacuum”

Huh? Gravity exists perfectly fine in a vacuum, thank you very much. I don’t want to be rude, but really?

crazypete1

Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of basic physics. Nothing “propels” itself “up” because it is lighter than the medium it is suspended in: the medium moves down, forcing the lighter item “up”. This is why oil will float to the top of water.

Also: “Plus it has gravity helping it out, that would not be the case in a vacuum”

Huh? Gravity exists perfectly fine in a vacuum, thank you very much. I don’t want to be rude, but really?

lennyoks

Actually stuff floats because of the pressure difference between the top and the bottom. if it was because the medium moves down then sinking objects wouldn’t be lighter in liquids. However even a sinking object is lighter in denser fluids because the fluid exerts a higher pressure at its bottom than top. Floating objects float because the pressure differential is enough to overcome its weight. Similarly aircraft lift is also generated by pressure differentials. Only in the case of aircraft this difference in pressure is cause by motion.

IDoKnow

@lennyoks:disqus – Correct

THE IMMERSED OBJECT EXPERIENCES WEIGHT LOSS DUE TO DISPLACEMENT BUT THE LIFT IS CREATED BY PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL. IF GRAVITY IS GREATER THAN THE P-DIFF THEN IT WILL SINK

fan_boy

WRONG!

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

Rubbish!!

salvis

…unless there is a force applied to an object, such as bouyancy caused by gravity and immersion in a fluid such as air or water

convolution

Damn republicans need an education.

James

Chances are whatever political viewpoint you are coming from has people just as unintelligent and uneducated as some republicans. You are the only one here attacking the person instead of simply correcting them or telling them they’re wrong. Yes, he may be wrong but that was no reason to insult his education.

When did he mention his political standpoint?

Singh1699

Politics have been turned counter revolutionary in America. Increased bureaucracy is associated with intelligence, guns with stupidity.

Matthew O’Shaughnessy

Anyone who thinks bureaucracy is intelligent has a brain abnormality.

Federico Mastronardi

I probably hate republicans just as much as you do but what the fuck does political affiliation have anything to do here? Eat a dick.

IDoKnow

Damned Demonoid needs a brain AND morals. Out demon, out!!!

Will

Why do science articles always seem to bring out the dum-dums?

chris watts

Actually, that’s wrong. An object suspended in a liquid (or gas) of greater density will experince a buoyant force equal to the difference between its own weight and the weight of the liquid(or gas) that it displaces. This is why helium balloons float upwards in air.

Joel Detrow

For its size, the block of material is “lighter” than air, but the solid as a whole is still denser because air permeates through it.

bwcbwc

That still doesn’t make sense. If the total volume is x+y, where x is the portion of aerogel and y is the portion of air, and if the density of air is normalized to 1, then the density c of the aerogel is c<1. And the total mass is cx+y. The mass of an equivalent volume of air would be just x+y, and cx+y < x+y, because c<1. And even a slight difference in density will cause the object to rise due to bouyancy, unless the object is weighed down by liquid water (say condensation) or something else that is heavier than air. So unless there is contamination like water in the sample, I think the headline is just plain wrong.

Joel Detrow

Your math is wrong. All we need is the basic equation D = MV. According to the article, one cubic centimeter of this gel weighs 0.16 milligrams, or 0.00016 grams, which equals a density of 0.00016 grams per cubic centimeter. 15⁰C air at sea level has a density of 0.001225 grams per cubic centimeter, which is 7.66 times denser. If this new gel was completely stiff and impermeable to air (leaving a vacuum in all the empty space within its structure), it WOULD float away like a balloon.

Don’t misunderstand, the actual graphene the gel is made of is still denser than air, it’s just spread out over such a large area that the overall density of the object is lower than that of air The density of the air that permeates the object is not included in the calculation. It’s semantics, that’s all. Understand now?

Chum

Thank you for the explanation.

Joel Detrow

No problem, Chum!

…heh, I’ve always wanted to say that.

IDoKnow

Acually, bud [always wanted to say that], lennyoks is correct.

“…Actually stuff floats because of the pressure difference between the top and the bottom. if it was because the medium moves down then sinking objects wouldn’t be lighter in liquids. However even a sinking object is lighter in denser fluids because the fluid exerts a higher pressure at its bottom than top. Floating objects float because the pressure differential is enough to overcome its weight. Similarly aircraft lift is also generated by pressure differentials. Only in the case of aircraft this difference in pressure is cause by motion….”

THE IMMERSED OBJECT EXPERIENCES WEIGHT
LOSS DUE TO DISPLACEMENT BUT THE LIFT IS CREATED BY PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL. IF GRAVITY IS GREATER THAN THE P-DIFF THEN IT WILL SINK.

IDoKnow

Clarification – lennyoks is PARTIALLY correct

Joel Detrow

I think you replied to the wrong comment, but I will explain some things you got wrong here.

It’s a common misconception that aircraft lift is from the low pressure of the fast-moving air over the wing. However, the reality is the lift provided from the wing in modern aircraft is from the high angle-of-attack; if the lift were only from a pressure differential, aircraft would not be able to fly upside-down.

Let me define some terms to ensure we’re on the same page.

BUOYANCY: The upward force which a fluid exerts on objects submerged within it. The denser a fluid is, the more upward force it exerts. The amount of force is a function of pressure and surface area; higher pressure and higher surface area will increase the upward force.

WEIGHT: A function of gravity and mass. The greater the mass of an object or the gravity exerted on that object, the greater its weight.

DENSITY: A function of mass divided by volume (admittedly, I neglected to include the divisor in my comment a year ago). With the same formula, the mass of an object can be obtained from multiplying its weight by its volume.

PRESSURE: A function of depth within a fluid, the density of said fluid, and the gravitational constant. Measuring at increased depths or using a denser fluid at the same depth will increase the pressure.

Now, where the coverage of this aerogel gets into semantics is in how its density is measured. When the density calculation is made by measuring the outer shape of the aerogel, as a cylinder, you get a density that is far, far lower than that of air. However, if you were able to measure its true volume, you would come back from the density calculation with the density of the actual structure of the aerogel, which is denser than air. The upward force of buoyancy in air is less than the downward force gravity exerts on the gel, so it sinks in air.

In short, density measurements on air-permeable objects must be taken with a grain of salt.

IDoKnow

Joel,
To keep it simple, please explain this specific example. How
does a lighter-than-air-craft [hot air balloon] knows which way is
“UP”? Just because it displaces its volume of air does not endow it with sense of direction. This goes to your definition of BUOYANCY. Where does the “upward force” arise from? Why doesn’t it act sideways? The answer is – pressure – which arises from kinetic energy/motion, and density, but more acuratelly, pressure differential. More atoms [density] of a liquid on the underside overcome the lower kinetic forces [pressure] atop. Use of a Maxwells Demon device atop could overturn this phenomenon.

Interestingly, the higher density/pressure at a lower depth/altitude is caused by gravity and, therefore, buoyancy could be called “anti-gravity force”. You heard it here first. LOL

BTW, air does not speed up over an air foil. It arrives at the trailing edge at the same time as the underside air does. Air, however, “stretches” over the top surface creating a low pressure region PARTIALLY due to the removal of its surrounding brethren to the underside, caused by the angle of attack. In the upper limit the air wants to neutralize/normalize/equalize this low pressure, causing separation & turbulence if the pressure differential is great enough. The camber is there to allow smooth transition from ambient pressure into low pressure. Abrupt changes cause turbulence. Also, during a high angle of attack the camber does not provide a smooth enough transition which adds to the onset of turbulence. As I like to say, “Even a barn door will fly…but not very well”. And airplanes can fly upside down because of both, pressure differential and angle of attack. Both are needed to have efficient lift. The operative word is “efficient” because lift can
be created through several inefficient means. BTW, many experts are still debating what causes aerodynamic lift.

I was never convinced of the “faster moving air causes lower pressure” concept. It goes contrary to the continuity theorem [fluid mechanics].

On the graphene weight issue, it can be lighter than air possibly due to it being able to either contain pockets of vacuum or exclude air from entering its matrix. I read that a single layer coating of graphene can prevent hydrogen from escaping a vessel.
.
Cheers
.

Joel Detrow

My ultimate point was that the aerogel is only “lighter than air”, as the headline states, when you use its general shape for volume calculations, rather than the true volume of the carbon making up the gel’s structure, which is substantially smaller and much harder to determine. If gas could not permeate the gel, and its internal structure was a vacuum, it would absolutely float, as the impermeable solid would then be much lighter than the air around it.

http://disqus.com/sdmitch16/ sdmitch16

Using the volume of the carbon and air but only the mass of the air makes no sense at all. The only reason to do it is so they could make a clickbait headline.

yor mom

What a farce. If it’s lighter than air, it would float away, period. It doesn’t need to contain a vacuum. What bwcbwc is exactly correct.
If the structure itself is lighter then air, then the air that it is displacing would create buoyancy which would be calculated as the difference between the weight of air displaced and the weight of the structure.
As to the point of it being denser than air, but not denser then air is pretty ridiculous doublespeak.
That would be like creating a gigantic 1 cubic mile cube out of iron, which has walls that are 1 atom thick, and then saying that the iron cube is less dense than than air. Ya, technically it’s true, but who gives a fuck? Anything can be less dense than anything if we want to calculate it in such a silly fashion.

Or say the carbon structure only adds 14% to the weight of the air in the space it fills.

bwcbwc

Which was my point exactly The only way that the stuff is lighter than air is ifthe material itself is less dense than air. Saying that it only has 14% of the weight of the air in the space it fills is the same as saying it has 14% of the density. Same as the hot air balloon effect. In which case, any object made of the material should float to the ceiling because of buoyancy, unless it’s tied down.

Most likely explanation for the discrepancy, apart from sloppy reporting, is that the structure contains vacuum bubbles that fill up space without contributing mass. So the material in its special foam structure is “lighter than air”, but the solid material itself is not.

Tyler

Ignore me, I misread the decimal placement.

Brian Wang

That makes no sense. If the average density is less than that of air, then the material weighs less per unit of volume than air. Therefore, it would displace greater mass then it has, and should be pushed up.

Joel Detrow

Good job replying to a 3 year old comment, but I believe my mindset at the time was explaining the logic used in the article, which says “a cubic centimeter of the gel weighs 0.16 milligrams”. A basic density calculation (mass divided by volume) using those numbers comes back as a density of 0.00016 g/cm³. The density of air is 0.001225 g/cm³, which is 7.65 times higher; this explains the article title.

In reality, because the aerogel is not a solid mass and is a permeable lattice of graphene, 99% of the supposed “volume” of the aerogel is just air. The real structure of the gel (the graphene itself) has a much lower volume, and thus its real density is higher than air.

If you were somehow able to suck all air out of the structure and keep it out, without letting it be crushed by the air pressure, it would be extremely buoyant, like a balloon full of hydrogen.

Neon Frank

Reading through the comments it seems most are about the erroneous statement as written about this aerogel being seven times lighter than air with no further explanations on how this even possible.

I imagine that didn’t work out as Sebastian had anticipated

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

I stand by my original statement :) If people want to argue semantics, rather than discuss the awesomeness of the material, that’s fine by me — it’s just a bit disappointing.

salvis

The material is no doubt awesome. If it is 7x lighter than air, that is more of its awesomeness. Can you explain what you mean that it is 7x lighter than air? Ice is lighter (less dense) than water and it floats. Basic laws of physics (fluid dynamics) would indicate that if the lighter than air statement were true, that this stuff would float too. Since there is no volume given in the title, then lighter is inferred to mean “less dense”. Of course 5 lbs of lead (dense material) is lighter than 50 lbs of helium (not dense), but it would be silly to say lead is 10x lighter than helium…. Is there something that I am missing?

SgtHop

It doesn’t float for the same reason a ship that is full of water doesn’t float. The aerogel is full of the air that surrounds it, and as such, is no longer buoyant. Hence, it does not float.

bwcbwc

Actually a wooden ship/raft/log that is “full of water” will float, just like a log will. Most ships are only lighter than water because they contain air. A metal ship doesn’t sink because it’s full of water, it sinks because metal is denser than water. A purely wooden ship thta didn’t contain heavy items like cannon, amphorae or other items might break up in a storm, but the wreckage would float.

chris watts

except for that damn cannon.

Will

But ships only float in the first place due to displacement, not “lightness”. Most modern ships are made of steel, which if you didnt know, is SEVERAL times heavier than water.

Gordon Freeman

to simplify this whole boring discussion (not the article) about this amazing substance…. a single graphene aerogel molecule has seven times less mass than a single air molecule (which contains co2, nitrogen, oxygen and little argon). Here is a cool vid about just one its uses:

That can’t fuckin’ possibly be true. If it was, then this graphene aerogel would float, regardless of whether it’s structure is full of air or not.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=517149115 Dylan Miles

Don’t confuse weight with density. The material is still denser than air, therefor it does not float.

bwcbwc

If you take that position, then the phrase “7 times lighter than air” is false. The only way to express this ratio is in terms of density. Otheriwse you’re implying that a pound of feathers is lighter than a pound of bricks.

Michamus

Ah, but a pound of silver is lighter than a pound of bricks.

Septet

Only because silver is measured in Troy weights, which have 12 ounces to the pound, as opposed to the 16 of an Imperial pound.

g;ghrwghWdghkiwhjbwurmomm

your wrong

g;ghrwghWdghkiwhjbwurmomm

thats not what yoummmmmmo

g;ghrwghWdghkiwhjbwurmomm

my teacher said it can rest on stuff cuz u can magnetize it

g;ghrwghWdghkiwhjbwurmomm

ha

Alex

You are confusing weight with density.

LZKashmir

This makes no sense to me. If it is lighter than air, it should be floating. Air would be the medium all (well, most notwithstanding water) things on earth are suspended in…right? LIghter than air is lighter than air. I’m sure it’s wicked light, but I’m not understanding how it’s lighter than air…just sitting there, not floating off. Am I having a stupid moment?

s3ct0r

it’s simple… the molecules of a solid are much more dense than those of a gas. So even though each molecule is 7 times lighter the overall object is still heavier because the density is maybe 50 times greater.

deefthecheif

not true, molecules are not “denser” simply bc they are composing a solid. A hydrogen molecule present in hydrogen gas is the same as a hydrogen molecule present in liquid hydrogen, the difference is in the distance between each molecule which relates to how many molecules will fit in a given space. Also each molecule is not lighter, the graphene molecules individually would still contain more mass than any given molecule of gas present in air (oxygen, nitrogen, etc) and the densityof the entire object is actually less than that of air, which is what is explained in the article

s3ct0r

excellent correction… what I meant to say but clearly did not was that the molecules are more densely arranged in a solid vs gas/plasma etc. thanks.

GatzLoc

A light gust would probably do that anyway.

Think of the white stuff on dandelions, it’s lighter than air isn’t it? (not sure) but it sits there due to density, now blow on it and see how far it goes.

Will

Are you saying that a KITE is lighter than air? Man, the American education system is freaking garbage

Gilbert Dwek

A saturated sponge does not float on water even though for an equal volume it is much lighter. This is the same as why graphene aerogel will not float on air. It will be saturated by the air it is suspended within. Evacuate all the air from the graphene then the total volume left would be seven times lighter than the same volume of air. Although each molecule that makes up graphene is heavier than each molecule of air, the density must be far smaller for the statement to be true.

Cool stuff butCarbon is heavier than air it will not float in air, mass in earths gravitation field is what dictates how much something here weights, more mass per volume equals more density. All that tells us if any part of it were lighter than air it would float reguardless if it were filled with air people are just having trouble visulizing this. A foam boat will float full of water because the foam is displacing more water than the water it itself weighs. Density plays no role in this as people are suggesting, something can be highly dense (lots of mass per volume) and be heavy or light (on earth that is). This is not that hard to figure just substitute water for air it is a little easier to visualize. Most things are heavier than water but they contain air (or something with a lower weight which again is force applied to a mass by earth gravity) trapped inside that is the only reason they are lighter, foam for instance is filled with many pores of gas, well it floats because the gasses are lighter than water if we were to remove the air we would have a heavy plastic that would sink now (like carbon in air) if we had something to replace the air with that was still lighter than water but a solid it would now float again even though we took away the air and even though the plastic the foam is made of is heavier than water. Revese that and make the plastic part of the foam with air then fill the voids of the foam which were air before with water guess what it still floats. Like everyone has said if it weighs less than air it floats it doesnt matter if it is filled with air or not and that at rest stay at rest stuff well gravity on our planet never quits lol. Basically the title to this is bogus, in no way shape or form is it lighter than air, remove the air from it and it would no longer have any volume and be heavy as any other carbon add as much air to it as you want it will never be even as light as air even though eventually it would be very difficult to measure the difference as it became mostly air with traces of carbon. I am sorry if I wrote this terribly with gramar spelling punctuation and all that, but I am tired.

Ray Cabarga

Neon Frank explains it higher in the thread:

“The statement is incomplete therefore is misleading as the function
of any aerogel lightness is its voids within its structure and those
voids would be filled with air therefore the total weight of say one
cubic centimetre of aerogel is the sum of aerogel material and the air
filling its voids.

Therefore to be correct the statement should read:

“The same volume that a graphene aerogel structure occupies, in a vacuum, is seven times lighter than the same volume of air” “

yor mom

Holy shit, did you know that a vacuum is infinitely less dense than air in the equivalent space!?

Ray Cabarga

Neon Frank explains it higher in the thread:

“The statement is incomplete therefore is misleading as the function
of any aerogel lightness is its voids within its structure and those
voids would be filled with air therefore the total weight of say one
cubic centimetre of aerogel is the sum of aerogel material and the air
filling its voids.

Therefore to be correct the statement should read:

“The same volume that a graphene aerogel structure occupies, in a vacuum, is seven times lighter than the same volume of air” “

Robert Foy

And idiots over here want to stop government funding of science R&D. Fucking morons. Most of them have the collective IQ of retarded monkeys on crack. You know who I am talking about, the Palin’s of the world.

Neon Frank

“Not a single thing we use today cannot be traced back to “pie in the sky” research by scientists or by government funded R&D in the last 70 years”

Seems you forgot about Apollo, yes? For a good example; When the Apollo program was envisioned both the command module and the lunar lander required a computer however at that time computers filled an entire room.

I understand your frustration and agree with your sentiments. However the fault is not with the government as “People have the government they deserve”. So as American government is still not a dictatorship or a single party totalitarian regime the fault falls clearly on the voting population of Americans who can only manage to say “whatever, America is number one yeehaw!”

hugoalves

I’m sorry that I might be interfering in a conversation that has nothing to do with me, but I think you have misunderstood what he meant by that phrase. I believe he was argumenting in favor of R&D, be it, from the government or from private iniciative.

Javier Martinez

Sir I applaud the politeness in your reply. A breath of fresh air as they say :)

Magius

That is very much correct. Bob’s only fault was the use of a double negative on that sentence which are known to confuse readers right and left.

LZKashmir

Sounds like you need a new country. This one has a constitution, with 18 enumerated powers set out for the federal government. Maintaining an Army/Navy is one of them. Funding R&D is not. China might end up leading us, if they aren’t already, but not for the reasons you suggest. I think much more innovation and R&D comes from the private sector. Perhaps, if the federal government was only doing the 18 things it was designed to do, it wouldn’t tax us (private sector) as much and we would have more money to dump into R&D. It’s my opinion that your logic if severely flawed.

(FYI, most of the actually helpful R&D that the government does do, comes by way of military research. Careful you don’t start singing those praises. Don’t want to end up on the same side as the ” retarded monkeys on crack” or “Palin’s of the world”.)

Greg Bell

Tea Party monkeys don’t even support the military – they are MUCH more libertarian in their leanings than their, more traditional, GOP cohorts. Like most lower primates, they merely “ape” their support. But, when asked to ACTUALLY FUND that military, whether for war making, taking care of our veterans, OR pure research, these armchair patriots very quickly demure in favor of their own creature comforts, throwing feces, and screaming, “taxes, taxes, taxes…freedom, freedom, freedom”.

It’s the main reason the sequester didn’t work – ultimately, they were just fine with the military component of the cuts, which were MEANT to be the bitter pill for that, supposedly, so military oriented side of the aisle. The mistake, they discovered, was that you can’t threaten a side, a party, with something they actually want …no matter how loudly (and hypocritically) they scream and beat their chests to the contrary. Proof is in the pudding, as they say, and they are, now, on record.

Will

“Perhaps, if the federal government was only doing the 18 things it was
designed to do, it wouldn’t tax us (private sector) as much and we would
have more money to dump into R&D.”

What the hell are you talking about? A HUGE percentage of the money your precious “private” sector spends coming up with these innovations is provided by government grants and MASSIVE corporate subsidies.

The only problem is that public tax money is used to create private products for PRIVATE profit, instead of using those profits to pay back the LOAN given to private enterprise by the American Taxpayer. Corporations are parasites, leeches on the government teat.

VirtualMark

It’s crazy isn’t it, the amount humans spend on killing each other. If everyone pooled their resources we’d have the worlds problems sorted out overnight. Human nature sucks, people think of themselves and think in the short term.

GatzLoc

Except, Islam requires muslims to wage jihad. Islamic invasions caused the dark ages in north africa, the me and europe. 2 of them are still in the dark ages, we have a simple solution. Tell ppl stop following the death cult of a 57 year old man who sleeps with 9 year olds.

Tell them to get out, nuke the rest. Problem is, the quran has taqiyyah or lying to preserve yourself and for the good of Islam.

I’m not hating, saying the truth when you wonder how those ‘nice somalis’ can have civil war, or w.e stuff’s really like find out the trutha bout Islam and confront it the true nature of it comes out.

Watch bill warner’s videos, his lobbying is the reason tennesee is now the first state to have bills that explicitly prohibit a judge from looking at Sharia.

And he’s not a redneck, he’s a quantum psyicist, a professor, and a man of science first and foremost.

He breaks everything down statistically, and uses a historical quran.

The original quran was in chornological order, with historical context and foodnotes. This was later removed, in mohammed’s life even illterate arabs would sit and discuss the quran as when it said you can only destroy some of the palm trees; they knew from even someone reading it to them, that last week mohammed destroyed some trees of the jews but later on said you keep the rest and we tax (extort) you.

Hint, according to the quran, as well as mohammd aka sira (bio) + hadith (3rd party orated traditions of his) the good muslims are the evil ones who veil, and kill women and wage war against infidels.

Mohammed says himself he hates peaceful muslims more than anything, forget which verses.

Remember, read it yourself or learn from a non-muslim and then go read yourself to double check.

A muslim either agrees with mohammed and is redundant or is lying.

Taqiyyah and kitman search it religiously sanctioned lying to all non-muslims.

–

Islam, is about worshipping allah as mohammed would; he is considered the perfect man.

A lier (broke many treaties), rapist, slaver, and pedophile (6 year old wife who he called beautiful and actually asked for; dad refused, allah gave him a verse sanctioning it LOLOl what a sadistic troll).

There’s another evil man who said the only religion he respects is Islam. Due to that internet law, I won’t invoke his name but you know who I’m talking about. ;)

VirtualMark

I don’t like Islam either, as far as I’m concerned they’re just stupid people. Why believe in a book that was written by men to control people? Stupidity. I’m not saying there isn’t a god either – we don’t know. But organised religion in general is one of the stupidest things we have on the planet.

It makes me laugh when people get called racist for speaking out against religion, more stupidity.

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

Of course what is Christianity? It’s a religion based on a book written to control people.

VirtualMark

I don’t like Islam either, as far as I’m concerned they’re just stupid people. Why believe in a book that was written by men to control people? Stupidity. I’m not saying there isn’t a god either – we don’t know. But organised religion in general is one of the stupidest things we have on the planet.

It makes me laugh when people get called racist for speaking out against religion, more stupidity.

Nourjan Nanash

Wow !Talk about misinformation.Everything single thing you’ve just posted about Islam here is false. This level of critical research failure and ignorance is inexcusable in the internet age… and that not even talking about those who agrees with you.

Anyway what does this have anything to do with aerogel?

JambaJim

“.Everything single thing you’ve just posted about Islam here is false”
He may not be describing the way you practice Islam, but he is, sadly, truthful about Islam as written in its foundational books.

Nourjan Nanash

He may not be describing the way you practice Islam, but he is, sadly, truthful about Islam as written in its foundational books.

When I said everything , that also includes his so called “quotations” of its “foundational books”.At best he was applying misinterpretation and to the texts in question and at worst he was purposely spreading misinformation.

The only people espousing the interpretation the OP posted are considered to radicals or extremists by the majority of Islamic scholars.

Again, I will ask : WHAT DOES THIS ENTIRE LINE OF DISCUSSION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE HERE OR EVEN AEOROGEL?

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

II don’t think they are listening Nourjan. But I think they got off the track when no one could understand the meaning of the headline and attributed that to government education cuts and one thing lead to another and then the long winded guy thought it was his cue to start bashing Islam and then somebody ran with that and oh my. But yeah it would be nice to stick to the topic: aerogel, which i was actually interested in, and not these angry guys who think they know everything about everybody cause they watched some video. its all judgmental psuedo-bigotry. Humans trying to form little groups of themselves so they don’t feel alone.

JambaJim

“.Everything single thing you’ve just posted about Islam here is false”
He may not be describing the way you practice Islam, but he is, sadly, truthful about Islam as written in its foundational books.

Will

The United States had a civil war. The whole of the Christian and Jewish worlds have had MULTIPLE World Wars. When was the last time a Muslim nation started a World War?

And how is a Jihad any different from a Crusade? Two words describing the same thing.

Really, the only difference between Muslims and the other two Abrahamic religions, is that unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims actually FOLLOW their religion to the letter. Christians and Jews only pretend to. And it is the superior religious piousness that causes Jews and Christians to revile Islam, because it holds a mirror to their faces and shows them the truth of their blasphemy, and a truth that atheists already know: God’s Laws are inferior to Man’s Laws. Following God’s Laws brings death and destruction, following the laws of Secular Humanism brings peace and prosperity.

American Christians realize that they are the equivalent of atheists compared to Muslims. Its is Islam that reveals to them the truth they dare not face: that religion is evil, and a blight upon mankind.

https://twitter.com/MetroIssuesLou Metro Issues :: Louisville

Interesting insight. Thanks.

Will

“Tell ppl stop following the death cult of a 57 year old man who sleeps with 9 year olds”

The Jewish Talmud instructs Jews that it is legal and allowed by God for men to marry and have sex with children as young as the age of 3. And Mormon sects routinely marry girls even younger than 9 off to adult Mormon men.

Will

“Watch bill warner’s videos, his lobbying is the reason tennesee is now
the first state to have bills that explicitly prohibit a judge from
looking at Sharia.”

Sharia Law is 99% identical to Biblical and Talmudic Law. Sharia Law is against homosexuality, birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc., all the things that CHRISTIANS are against as well. If there can be no Sharia Law, then there can be no laws against homosexuality, birth control, or sex, because those laws would necessarily be Sharia.

Will

“There’s another evil man who said the only religion he respects is
Islam. Due to that internet law, I won’t invoke his name but you know
who I’m talking about. ;)”

Surely youre not talking about Adolf Hitler?

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” –Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

“As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly
at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single
holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.” –Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3

“The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.” –Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” –Adolf Hitler

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.” –Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922

Now if you want to hear from a truly evil man who DID express his respect for violent Islamic terrorists, heres Ronald Reagan speaking about the Mujahideen (Osama Bin Laden was one of its key supporters): “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” –Ronald Reagan

bwcbwc

Not all defense research is for weapons or armaments. Remember where the internet came from. CERN (inventors of the WWW) is also government funded, though not from the US.

DAvid Nelson

HD TV numnuts

Debaditya Chatterjee

WEB CODING FAIL. [above second picture in the second page]

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

Thanks, will fix!

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

As per every comment here, if it were lighter than air it would float up like helium. Rubbish claim and rubbish reporting…

Neon Frank

Yes correct, they are referring to the volumes occupied by the graphene aerogel, in a vacuum, and the same volume of air

Neon Frank

“A graphene aerogel that is seven times lighter than air”

The statement is incomplete therefore is misleading as the function of any aerogel lightness is its voids within its structure and those voids would be filled with air therefore the total weight of say one cubic centimetre of aerogel is the sum of aerogel material and the air filling its voids.

Therefore to be correct the statement should read:

“The same volume that a graphene aerogel structure occupies, in a vacuum, is seven times lighter than the same volume of air”

;)

http://www.facebook.com/anna.lipniacka Anna Lipniacka

that is perfectly correct.. however if they wanted to be as specific as that they would need to add “air at the atmospheric pressure”. However the present statement is self-explanatory to anyone who passed any decent exam in physics. “Normal matter” is anyway 99.99% void. If you would enlarge a hydrogen atom to a size of an office, the nucleus (proton) would be of a size of a dust grain, and an electron somewhere on the walls, totally unnoticable. If you would strip away the voids and make matter just out of nucleai- one tea spoon would weight thousands of elefants or something like that. This is what matter of nuclear stars is. So when we speak about matter and give its specific weight it is assumed that what is in between the structures is filled with “void” or vacuum, and not with some other material -like air.

bwcbwc

That certain makes more sense than any other explanation I’ve read in this thread. Well played, sir.

PeterVermont

As noted above, graphene aerogel is NOT lighter than air.

If it were lighter than air it would be floating, which it clearly does not.

Because carbon is denser than air (i.e. mix of 78% nitrogen, 21%
oxygen, 1% argon + C02.), any material made from pure carbon must
necessarily be denser than air.

The only way a material denser
than air could make something less dense than air is if it were
combined with another item whose density was less than air, thereby
bringing the average density below that of air. An example of this is a
rubber balloon filled with helium — the rubber is not less dense than
air but the composite object is.

A conceivable way that a
carbon based material could be made lighter than air would be if was
structurally sound enough to withstand atmospheric pressure and was
completely airtight (which, coincidentally, graphene is) and was then
evacuated. I would call this a vaccum dirigible or vacuum airship or
perhaps if the pore size was small enough, a magic carpet ;-)

bwcbwc

So by your logic H20 would always float on O2, N2 or CO2, right?

PeterVermont

An excellent point. While I still maintain that graphene aerogel is more dense than air as shown by it negative buoyancy you have destroyed my secondary argument based on strictly atomic makeup.

Where I went wrong is not considering phase — solids are more closely packed than the same molecules in a gas phase. I suspect it is correct to use the atomic makeup logic to estimate density if the items are in the same phase since the distance between the outer electron shell should be similar regardless of element.

If my assumption about distance between outer orbitals is correct, then air will always be less dense than graphene IN THE SAME PHASE and since solid is always denser than gas phase of the same molecule we can therefore state that solid graphene must necessarily be less dense than gaseous air.

CarvalhoRosolen

i think the statement isnt complete, the cube in void has a certain mass, and the same cube, but made of air has another mass, so the graphene is lighter, but as the cube is “filled” with air, it doesnt fly away… and sorry for my bad english, since its not my mother
language

Steve Lloyd

that is precisely what water vapour does..in air and by extension those gases

Since it has 90% compressibility(at least) and it’s permeable than 90% of its mass is also air. So 1 cubic meter would technically be 160g+1.2kg(air at sea level~room temp)-1.2kg(.1)=1.24kg^3. Thus having a density greater than air.

If the material was made of hydrogen atoms, it would float.

PeterVermont

bwcbc made a good point to me above — you must consider phase. Liquid hydrogen would not (and does not) float in air.

Fem_over_4

If u measure up a tent it would seem lighter than air as well, but u need strong winds to pick that up.

Long John

I was masterbating the other day and all this white stuff flew out, I thought it ligher than air, but it fell back down on my face….

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

I almost thought you were the most intelligent person here but you spelled masturbating wrong. Sorry.

http://www.facebook.com/Dragon90815 Robert Long

Make it into a mattress

shawn

man..with all these scientists on here commenting, why did it take the chinese to invent it..lol

Not my realname

OMG I NEED TO KNOW WHERE TO GET THIS.

Bill

How DURABLE is this stuff?? That’s what I want to know! If you TOUCH IT will it disintegrate?

james

i like potatoes

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

I’ve found him! The most intelligent person here is James. He likes potatoes. Has anyone got a potato for James? He likes them and he’s got a higher IQ than anyone else here. Hey maybe i should try one of those potatoes!

deefthecheif

Just to clear some of the questions up on the “lightness of the material.” The material is composed of some form of graphene meaning the actual material is not lighter than air, as in a chunk of graphene will not float off like helium will, but the porous nature of the structure means that the amount of material present in a given volume has less mass than the amount of air that could be contained in the same volume making it less dense, which is why its being considered “lighter than air.” The reason it doesn’t float away is bc the pores become filled with air and this extra mass causes the material to be denser than the surrounding air on its own. The sponge example described further down is a good explanation of why the material does not float. A sponge floats on water bc it is porous and the pores are filled with air, which is less dense than water. If you fill the pores with water (squeeze the sponge under water) the sponge no longer floats. This is the same effect air has on the aerogel. Since the pores are filled with the same medium the material is present in, it will not float.

Jon Donnelly

Hmm, I could make a cosy IGLOO type habitation with that stuff, just the job for those displaced by war, natural disasters etc. Tents suck.

http://xtremecomputers.net/ Xtreme Computers

That is Wrong . . . .!

Guest

Ok for those who can’t figure this out:

PV=nRT. P=1atm, V=1mL, and T = 19C, solve for n. ~0.0000417134 moles. Assume air is 100% nitrogen (yes I know it isn’t, but it will get close enough) = 28 g/mol. So 1cm3 of air weighs 1.168 mg. 1cm3 of this aerogel weighs 0.16 mg…do the math.

Dickstr

who care’s the material is truly amazing.

richtux1978 .

If a cubic meter weighs just 160 grams (5.6 ounces) that means the average man can lift 314 cubic meters of aerogel. Picture somebody holding that size object over their head!

http://Nope.com The Professor

Will this thread ever end? GAHHHHHHHH! The gel is less dense than that of air, but overall every OBJECT has gravity that applies to it (gasses are typically not able to be seen, but if they were, you would see them move all around the place because they have GRAVITY). Gravity can not, and never will be a negative force! The gravity on the gel is less than that of the air, but the gel can not just pick up and fly away, therefore (will his point ever end?) the gel may be less dense or ”lighter” than air, but it can not fly away. If the gel did have negative gravity, and gravity could be negative… well that would be a different story!
Please don’t start a new thread for that purpose!

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

But why doesn’t it fly…Just kidding! THE END.

Steve Lloyd

You know the sponge analogy was almost on point.. Take a lump of this aerogel, and squeeze all the air out of it until it’s just a little chunk of hard material. What have you got? A little lump of carbon that isn’t going to float anywhere.
Also what really annoys me is the headline. “seven times lighter” is a gross abuse of the language of mathematics and english for that matter.
I weigh 100kg, my wife weighs 50kg, I am twice as heavy as my wife. She is not twice as light as me. Weight is measureable as a force. Lightness is not, at best it is a comparison.
My wife is 50% lighter than me!

http://www.raycabarga.com Ray Cabarga

Exactly Steve it’s just more internet stupidity. When you published an article for print in the old days you had editors other people to double check your accuracy. Nowadays people will s
ay any stupid thing to get you to read their rubbish. Its like the slide show ads that show a picture thats not even in the slideshow. Shameless liars is what the internet has made us. Us as a culture that is.

johnbales

Can this be used as insulation in spacecraft? Noticing that it can protect the crayons from the blue flame of a Bunsen burner I would think it would have applications in spacecraft, especially because it would greatly reduce weight if you’re launching from Earth or the cold of space.

I think they forgot buoyancy force
after cal I think 0.16mg/cm^3 is 1/7 of Air but if this in cloud buoyancy it will be 8/7 of air

IgnoranceBeater

While old news by now, I want to chip in in the discussion anyway. First of all, let’s get the facts; the title says “Graphene aerogel is seven times lighter than air”. This can not be true. If the aerogel itself was lighter than air, then it would float, as some of the more intelligent posters have already correctly pointed out.

Other posters claiming that it doesn’t float because ‘it is full of air’ miss the point. Even if it’s full of air, since the surrounding medium is also air (and at the same density at that), the endresult of a material lighter than air, filled with air, would still be that it floats in the surrounding air.

Some other posters claim that ‘but if it was vacuum it would float’. There are two problems with that. First of all, the title did not say ‘per volume, if it was vacuum and could withstand the pressure, it would float in the air’. No, it simply said the *aerogel itself* was lighter than air, period. This statement is clearly false, as demonstrated above. Secondly, even if we would take it that it is meant that way, it doesn’t make any sense. Why would that matter? If I make a construction of 3mm thick cedarwood of one cubic meter, I could readily say the same: if you imagine that construct to be vacuum and it could withstand the (air)pressure, it would be ‘lighter than air’ and float too. In fact, ALL constructs with a (total) volume where the buoyancy supersedes the weight of the material it is made out (in total) could claim the same, in that case. Such a statement is ludicrous, thus, unless one wants to be Captain Obvious.

Which doesn’t mean aerogels aren’t wonderful materials and maybe, in the future, some of them *could* be made vacuum inside and still withstand the pressure, and then you could have such constructs floating in the air. Sort of like a (solid) vacuum balloon, that you can buy instead of a balloon filled with helium nowadays. That would be cool. But nevertheless, the fact remains: the statement in the title is nonsensical at best, and misleading at worst. It’s better to avoid such a thing, CERTAINLY in a scientifically based article.

Wayne

create article i enjoyed it, theres another site thats dedicated to graphene if anyones interested its called http://aerogelgraphene.com

David Law

To people asking why it doesn’t float: The actual carbon structure making up the aerogel is denser than air. It contains however a tremendous amount of empty space, making the overall density much smaller than air – in an atmosphere however, air permeates the structure and fills the empty space, so it does not float. This is the same way a steel boat floats in water, because it is filled with air. If the boat was filled with water instead, it would of course sink.

Thomas Hopkins

Awesome

Sandeep Sharma

Hi sebestian,
Can you tell us why the graphite aerogel is not floating in air?
Why hydrogen filled balloon floats in air?
Will graphite aerogel packed balloon also float in air??

Zach

guys, guys, guys… air is affected by gravity just as this “Aerogel” is too. The gel is light enough to barely disturb what it rests on but it will only float if it is a gas. gases expand to have the same amount of atoms per square unit of measure. a solid, however has a higher mass than air, and therefore is “weighted” by gravity, and not to mention, the -approximately- 14 pounds of air resting on it weighs it down, hence our skeleton (supports the weight above us, and the weight of our bodies)(depending on your altitude [which at a greater altitude not as much air is over you]). SO, the gel is overall lighter than air but because of gravity and the weight of our atmosphere, and it will remain in place unless acted on by another object (hehe im 15 ;) )

OnlyOneWing

If it is conductive it would make extremely poor and dangerous insulation. Maybe it will be used for insulation “in China”.

Chasse Court

If this weight is correct a cubic meter of this material weighs less than a cubic meter of helium – this could herald a new age for airships.

macrumpton

This would be a great material to make model aircraft with. Not only would they need very little power to operate, but they would not get hurt in crashes because of the low mass and resilience.

wah

Charles Shoults has it right, and it’s the language that’s slightly inhibiting. Neither this aerogel or any other are “less dense” than air. Still pretty impressive pictures!

wah

Just a bit of humor from the article…”hopes that the material might be used to mop up oil spills, squeezed to reclaim the oil, and then thrown back in the ocean to mop up more oil. “

So they take a shovelful, and throw it on the oil spill, and it wafts away in the breeze. LOL!

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2016 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.